July 7, 2016 Subject:
In this book, Higgins attempts an objective view on the prophet of Islam, Muhammad, by, perhaps correctly, treating the primary source, the Qur'an, as propaganda serving the purposes of Muhammad's successor, Othman.
Should Higgins successfully argue Muhammad's innocence, then what is to be achieved? The result would still not change Western morality's view on Islam, for it is the Qur'an which primarily represents this religion.
I gave up hope of Higgins successfully acquitting Muhammad from 'character assassination' where Higgins glosses over the accounts of Muhammad attacking people for booty, as I figured the rest would be the same delusional account of praise for a 'pious' warmonger.
I am amazed that someone so smart, showing such scientific indifference to religion in his other books - Anacalypsis Vols. 1 and 2, could be so obviously suckered by Islam, but perhaps 'An apology...' was a mere Magisterial exercise.